Mass delusion or genuine miracle?

[petras52]

Out of interest which atheists have this view of Fatima?

Personally I think it’s obvious that something happened. It would be very interesting to discover what it was, however this is likely to prove challenging under the circumstances.

Now that you are open to the possibility that something happened, whether a rare natural phenomenon or supernatural, you have to ask yourself… what are the odds that this “miracle” would happen on a specific day and a specific time?.. pretty unlikely, don’t you think? After all, if it wasn’t a miracle, than those three kids were pretty darn lucky in picking that day months in advance…

 

[Candide_West]

I thought we covered this? The people believing that something happened even if it did not actually happen (if that was how God worked the great miracle) does not bother me. It bolstered their faith. It’s awesome.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[Candide_West]

What’s with you?
God did not “make” people believe the sun was dancing… they believed the sun was dancing due to the presence of the Supernatural.*

Right. So? If it was not in fact dancing then it’s a deception. This seems pretty straightforward.*

For your mind the only possibility is God “screwing” some people’s neurons to fire the wrong way. Nobody that was present there believes that.

Incorrect, obviously there would be many methods of producing an illusion open to an omnipotent being. Including removing and replacing or simply editing the light coming from the sun. Obviously this would still be creating an illusion. Thus deception.

I believe that the Divine made its presence there in some way that distorted their perceptions because our bodies are not yet Supernatural.*

Fair enough, so you think that the illusion was affecting people’s perceptions.*

Think of it like this:*
Here is the sun----------Here is the Divine presence–.------------people that saw the miracle
O-------------------------------------------------X-----------------------------------------------------

Yep, that’s how I’ve been thinking of it. Obviously it’s in that middle bit (where the divine presence intervenes) where the illusion is created.*

Just like a spy intercepting messages and replacing them with false ones to make those on the receiving end believe something which is not true - it is a form of deception.

 

[Candide_West]

The illusion was very great. Do you believe that God was up to something shifty?*

Well in so far as we’ve agreed he undertook deception and yes I consider deception to be shifty, yes.*

Were God’s motives good or bad in your opinion? If bad then please explain?*

I have no views on Gods potential motives.*

Surely God, if God wanted to, could alter nature and only allow a few to actually witness it. At least you are willing to call it a miracle. Most just say that those folks were lying or delusional. If God can create everything from absolutely nothing then, well, you know the rest…

Well I’ve assumed it was an illusion/miracle for the sake of discussion. Just to test out the impact IF this is true. I know back when I was Christian I’d have struggled a lot with believing God deceives people, mostly because I believed “Jesus is the Truth” etc which obviously rather conflicts with “God sometimes deceives people”.*

 

[joe370]

Candide West;

Well I’ve assumed it was an illusion/miracle for the sake of discussion. Just to test out the impact IF this is true. I know back when I was Christian I’d have struggled a lot with believing God deceives people, mostly because I believed “Jesus is the Truth” etc which obviously rather conflicts with “God sometimes deceives people”.*

It sounds like you are set in your ways regarding the belief that Jesus was a deceiver with respect to the miracle of Fatima, therefore, from your perspective, it could not have been a miracle from God in my opinion.

However, if it was purely deception on God’s part, with the intent to dupe those folks at the cova then God failed miserably for the simple fact that so many people were converted.

 

[joe370]

Well in so far as we’ve agreed he undertook deception and yes I consider deception to be shifty, yes.*

I have no views on Gods potential motives.*

Well I’ve assumed it was an illusion/miracle for the sake of discussion. Just to test out the impact IF this is true. I know back when I was Christian I’d have struggled a lot with believing God deceives people, mostly because I believed “Jesus is the Truth” etc which obviously rather conflicts with “God sometimes deceives people”.*

Unless you can transition from deception to miracle, inductive reasoning, on your part might always look like this, in my humble opinion:

God cannot not deceive…

God deceived those folks at the Cova…

Therefore it was not a miracle…

 

[Candide_West]

I think any deception as you’re putting it was far outweighed both mentally and factually by a much more significant realization - that the supernatural does exist. *Even if it was somewhat misleading, most people would gladly trade the former for the latter.

I’m sure it would for those who were present. Still, I do wonder what changes the church made to make allowance for God sometimes being deceptive.*

But I’m not sure deception is a good word for it. So far, this thread assumes that either the sun actually moved, or false images were implanted in these people’s heads. How about a third possibility: God merely bent the sunlight heading for that region of the earth so that it *fluctuated? I see nothing sinister about that, nor anything refuting that possibility.

Indeed, that would be another way of producing the illusion. This is a vastly more sophisticated version of the old fashioned smoke and mirrors tricks used by magicians. Still an illusion of course and thus still a deception.*

Not necessarily sinister though, unless you consider an infinitely powerful being who undertakes deceptions to be sinister. I’d think of that as distinctly worrying, but not exactly sinister.*

 

[dskysmine]

Right. So? If it was not in fact dancing then it’s a deception. This seems pretty straightforward.*

That is not true…
This reminds me a lot to the film North & South when Margaret takes her brother to the station in the middle of the night and the man that is in love with her sees it he thinks she has a lover.
He made a conclusion based on what he saw, for his eyes she had a lover, but in reality she was hiding her brother from getting caught by the Marine.
She is not trying to convince the man she also loves that she already had a lover, but that is what he thinks anyways.
Here it is a similar case, the presence of the Divine is so overwelming that the perception of what happened cannot understand it other than “the dance of the sun”. We don’t know what really happened but we know what the people experienced. Same like the “lover” that never really existed came up in the previous case.

Incorrect, obviously there would be many methods of producing an illusion open to an omnipotent being. Including removing and replacing or simply editing the light coming from the sun. Obviously this would still be creating an illusion. Thus deception.

The problem here is that you don’t seem to understand the difference between the words you are suing.
An Illusion is not a Hallucination.
If our senses missinterpret a real stimulus it doesn’t mean that the stimulus was deceptive… just that our senses are not good enough to perceive that stimulus.

Fair enough, so you think that the illusion was affecting people’s perceptions.*

That’s the definition of illusion. I think you are confusing hallucination with illusion.

Yep, that’s how I’ve been thinking of it. Obviously it’s in that middle bit (where the divine presence intervenes) where the illusion is created.*

No… the “illusion” is “created” in our brain due to missinterpretation of real stimulus that we cannot rationalise. Kinda like Free Will?

Just like a spy intercepting messages and replacing them with false ones to make those on the receiving end believe something which is not true - it is a form of deception.

Replacing? Your example is exactly what I stated when I said:
““screwing” some people’s neurons to fire the wrong way”
There was no “false messages”… just Supernatural ones. Because you don’t believe in the Supernatural you don’t think it can affect the Natural.

God bless,
D.

 

[Candide_West]

Now that you are open to the possibility that something happened, whether a rare natural phenomenon or supernatural, you have to ask yourself… what are the odds that this “miracle” would happen on a specific day and a specific time?.. *pretty unlikely, don’t you think? * After all, if it wasn’t a miracle, than those three kids were pretty darn lucky in picking that day months in advance…

Er, I’ve always been “open” to the possibility something happened. Indeed I think it’d be a bit silly to say nothing happened at all. Here’s my view on some of the possibilities from my first post:

• deliberate hoax is probably one of the more likely, while it would have been difficult to achieve everything reported it’s not unreasonable to expect some embellishment for dramatic effect (just like our modern media) so we can guess not everything reported needs to have really been witnessed.
• mass delusion - possible, if so most likely brought on by religious hysteria. Of course this could be mixed with the above, ie some deliberate hoax amplified by religious excitement and later embellished further in the retelling / reporting.
• deliberate lie - relatively unlikely that such a large audience would undertake a complete fabrication. Of course not everyone would need to be in on it, a decent proportion of the audience and the press being willing would suffice. Still I’d consider this relatively unlikely, however some fabrications may have been mixed in with the above two.*
• atmospheric effect - Some weird atmospheric effect like an aurora borealis or ball lightening occurred which people witnessed and misreported. This seems pretty unlikely, the effect seems either too localised or too distributed for different known phenomena, and the odds of it happening in the right place on the right day for the prediction are pretty slim.*
• miracle - believability of this one depends a lot on your religious views. To me it seems unlikely, even if we accept the idea for the moment that miracles happen, then this one doesn’t fit the pattern of other miracles performed by God, indeed it goes expressly against the often repeated statements about not being able to put God to the test, because if the “miracle of the sun” is true then in this case God did indeed submit to test by believers and atheists alike.*

 

[Candide_West]

It sounds like you are set in your ways regarding the belief that Jesus was a deceiver with respect to the miracle of Fatima,*

Well you said that the miracle*was an illusion of the sun dancing when it was not. Clearly that is a deception. I’m not sure what being set in my ways has to do with anything???

therefore, from your perspective, it could not have been a miracle from God in my opinion.*

But you already said you that believe it WAS a miracle. Are you now changing your position on this?*

However, if it was purely deception on God’s part, with the intent to dupe those folks at the cova then God failed miserably for the simple fact that so many people were converted. *

Surely that means it was a success? Because people were indeed duped by the illusion and thus converted.*

Unless you can transition from deception to miracle, inductive reasoning, on your part might always look like this, in my humble opinion:

God cannot not deceive…

God deceived those folks at the Cova…

Therefore it was not a miracle…

That is another way to look at it yes. I guess it depends whether you find it easier to believe what happened at Fatima wasn’t a miracle OR believe in a God that deceives people. You kinda have to pick one or the other ultimately.*

 

[Candide_West]

That is not true…*
This reminds me a lot to the film North & South when Margaret takes her brother to the station in the middle of the night and the man that is in love with her sees it he thinks she has a lover.*
He made a conclusion based on what he saw, for his eyes she had a lover, but in reality she was hiding her brother from getting caught by the Marine.
She is not trying to convince the man she also loves that she already had a lover, but that is what he thinks anyways.
Here it is a similar case, the presence of the Divine is so overwelming that the perception of what happened cannot understand it other than “the dance of the sun”. We don’t know what really happened but we know what the people experienced. Same like the “lover” that never really existed came up in the previous case.

But of course the cases are different in an important way. In that movie Margaret didn’t know that the chap would get that impression. She didn’t set out to make him think that. IF she had gone there with her brother with the express intention of convincing him that she had a lover and knowing that he would believe this, THEN she would have been deceiving him.*

This then would be like Fatima. God knew in advance exactly what impression people would get. He can’t do accidents (one of the snags of omniscience) so he cannot evade responsibility for people mistaken impression. He could of course (being omnipotent) have done something equally impressive, like created a huge ball of light hovering at a different point in the sky so people wouldn’t be fooled into believing something incorrect (that it was the sun). But if you read the testimonies he seems to have gone out of his way to make it look like the sun specifically was doing those things.*

The problem here is that you don’t seem to understand the difference between the words you are suing.

Incorrect, I understand them just fine thank you.*

An Illusion is not a Hallucination.

Indeed not. I am aware of the distinction, thank you.*

If our senses missinterpret a real stimulus it doesn’t mean that the stimulus was deceptive… just that our senses are not good enough to perceive that stimulus.

Ok, so you are saying it was not an illusion but a hallucination. Fair enough. Of course this carries exactly the same problems.*

If you are saying that God made people hallucinate that something was happening when it is not then that is still a deception (as it would be if you were making someone believe something false using hypnosis).

If you are saying that God wasn’t responsible for the hallucination then you are essentially arguing for the “mass delusion” in the title of this thread (hence not a miracle).*

That’s the definition of illusion. I think you are confusing hallucination with illusion.

Actually it’s not the definition of illusion. Here are a couple of definitions (from Merriam Webster)*

1 : a misleading image presented as a visual stimulus*
2 a : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature ; especially : optical illusion

No… the “illusion” is “created” in our brain due to missinterpretation of real stimulus that we cannot rationalise. Kinda like Free Will?

Ok, so you’re saying that the divine presence interfered with people brains to make them see something happening when it was not. In that case hallucination is indeed a better term. Of course since you seem to be saying that this was caused by God it still represents a deception.*

Replacing? Your example is exactly what I stated when I said:
““screwing” some people’s neurons to fire the wrong way”
There was no “false messages”… just Supernatural ones. Because you don’t believe in the Supernatural you don’t think it can affect the Natural.*

No, afraid you’re incorrect there. In this example the spy is not doing anything mind altering to the chap on the receiving end. He’s just making sure he receives the wrong signals. This is the analog of God producing an illusion.

If on the other hand the spy was hypnotising the chap on the end to make him respond incorrectly, THAT would be more like messing with peoples neurons. This is the analog of God producing hallucinations in the witnesses heads.

Both of these are of course deceptions, they are just different ways of performing them.*

 

[dskysmine]

But of course the cases are different in an important way. In that movie Margaret didn’t know that the chap would get that impression. She didn’t set out to make him think that. IF she had gone there with her brother with the express intention of convincing him that she had a lover and knowing that he would believe this, THEN she would have been deceiving him.*

This then would be like Fatima. God knew in advance exactly what impression people would get. He can’t do accidents (one of the snags of omniscience) so he cannot evade responsibility for people mistaken impression. He could of course (being omnipotent) have done something equally impressive, like created a huge ball of light hovering at a different point in the sky so people wouldn’t be fooled into believing something incorrect (that it was the sun). But if you read the testimonies he seems to have gone out of his way to make it look like the sun specifically was doing those things.*

No, he didn’t gone out of His way to make people believe that the sun can dance… He disturbed the Natural World in a way that made the Mystery of His presence known.
How people interpret it is their own fault… not God’s. You are testifying things which you cannot, the will of God in that miracle. You don’t know what was God’s intention there, or what exactly happened there so you are making a false dichotomy of something you don’t want to consider.

Incorrect, I understand them just fine thank you.*

No you don’t check below.

Indeed not. I am aware of the distinction, thank you.*

No you aren’t, check below.

Ok, so you are saying it was not an illusion but a hallucination. Fair enough. Of course this carries exactly the same problems.*

If you are saying that God made people hallucinate that something was happening when it is not then that is still a deception (as it would be if you were making someone believe something false using hypnosis).

If you are saying that God wasn’t responsible for the hallucination then you are essentially arguing for the “mass delusion” in the title of this thread (hence not a miracle).*

What I said was
“If our senses missinterpret a real stimulus it doesn’t mean that the stimulus was deceptive”.
Apparently you think this is the definition of hallucination but it is not… It is the definition of Illusion. What I meant with this is proving that you don’t know what you are talking about.
And an Illusion is not a deception. That’s your problem.

Actually it’s not the definition of illusion. Here are a couple of definitions (from Merriam Webster)*

1 : a misleading image presented as a visual stimulus*
2 a : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature ; especially : optical illusion

Wow… let’s analyse it:
“Missinterpret” = “perception… misinterpretation”
“real stimulus” = “something objectively existing”
Pretty much sums it… Apparently you cannot read synonims.

Ok, so you’re saying that the divine presence interfered with people brains to make them see something happening when it was not. In that case hallucination is indeed a better term. Of course since you seem to be saying that this was caused by God it still represents a deception.*

Again… no…
Re read what I said and this time with a dictionary close by.

No, afraid you’re incorrect there. In this example the spy is not doing anything mind altering to the chap on the receiving end. He’s just making sure he receives the wrong signals. This is the analog of God producing an illusion.

If on the other hand the spy was hypnotising the chap on the end to make him respond incorrectly, THAT would be more like messing with peoples neurons. This is the analog of God producing hallucinations in the witnesses heads.

Both of these are of course deceptions, they are just different ways of performing them.*

Imagine this scenario:
You are looking at a friend of yours 100 meters away.
I put myself 5 meters away from you between you and your friend.
You see me and think: “dskysmine is a giant”. (If you can’t get the visual cues search for depth perception)
Did I deceive you into thinking I am a giant?
If you say yes I abandon this endeavor of trying to explain anything to you because I cannot do anything else.
God bless,
D.

 

[joe370]

Candide West;9703894]Well you said that the miracle*was an illusion of the sun dancing when it was not. Clearly that is a deception. I’m not sure what being set in my ways has to do with anything???

I mean to say that you will always view the event as God deceiving those people, in a bad way, and therefore will probably never commit to the idea of the events at Fatima being a genuine miracle for the good of mankind, and you would be right. Deception from God, the way you are thinking, would never come from God. For some reason you refuse to see the why…and the good that came from it…That’s cool.

But you already said you that believe it WAS a miracle. Are you now changing your position on this?*

If I viewed the event from your perspective then yes I would, but of course I do not.

Surely that means it was a success? Because people were indeed duped by the illusion and thus converted.*

Sorry, I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic; that’s the bad thing about online forums. Intonation is impossible to detect.

That is another way to look at it yes. I guess it depends whether you find it easier to believe what happened at Fatima wasn’t a miracle OR believe in a God that deceives people. You kinda have to pick one or the other ultimately.

Good point…

 

[Candide_West]

No, he didn’t gone out of His way to make people believe that the sun can dance… He disturbed the Natural World in a way that made the Mystery of His presence known.

But that ISN’T what the witness’s reported now is it? If all the witnesses had reported that they experienced the presence of God then you’d be fine saying that but (if you read the statements) you’ll see that they are very specific about it being the sun doing odd things…

“…the sun appeared in all its splendour. Then it began to revolve on its axis like the most magnificent fire-wheel that could be imagined, taking all the colours of the rainbow…”

“the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic law - the sun danced.”*

"The sun, whirling wildly seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth"

How people interpret it is their own fault… not God’s.

I’m afraid that doesn’t fly, because people can make mistakes but God cannot. The impression people got MUST have been the impression he intended them to get. Otherwise you’re saying he made a mistake, which make him imperfect.

*You are testifying things which you cannot, the will of God in that miracle. You don’t know what was God’s intention there, or what exactly happened there so you are making a false dichotomy of something you don’t want to consider.

No you’re misunderstanding I’m afraid. The only testimony I’m using is those who were at Fatima. As for Gods will, well we know that whatever happened must have been his will, otherwise again you’ve got God making a mistake in performing one of his miracles (imagine God afterwards going “oops, didn’t mean for them to see that”).

No you don’t check below.

No you aren’t, check below.

Incorrect on both counts. Here’s a definition for the term hallucination (from Merriam Webster) which is his I’ve been using the term…

1 a : perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD) b : the object so perceived
2 : an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion
synonyms see delusion

synonyms delusion, illusion, hallucination, mirage mean something that is believed to be true or real but that is actually false or unreal. delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind . illusion implies a false ascribing of reality based on what one sees or imagines . hallucination implies impressions that are the product of disordered senses, as because of mental illness or drugs . mirage in its extended sense applies to an illusory vision, dream, hope, or aim .

Hope that helps.

What I said was*
“If our senses missinterpret a real stimulus it doesn’t mean that the stimulus was deceptive”.*

I know, I read it.*

Apparently you think this is the definition of hallucination but it is not…*

I never said anything of the sort. See definition of hallucination above.

It is the definition of Illusion.*

It is not, heres the full definition from Merriam Webster for clarity…

Main Entry: illusion*
Pronunciation: \i-ˈlü-zhən
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin illusion-, illusio, from Latin, action of mocking, from illudere to mock at, from in- + ludere to play, mock — more at ludicrous
Date: 14th century
1 a obsolete : the action of deceiving b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
2 a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a pattern capable of reversible perspective
3 : a fine plain transparent bobbinet or tulle usually made of silk and used for veils, trimmings, and dresses
synonyms see delusion

What I meant with this is proving that you don’t know what you are talking about.*

So far that would seem to have been unsuccessful.

And an Illusion is not a deception. That’s your problem.*

Ok, you seem to be in disagreement with Merriam Webster dictionary on this one. Perhaps you’d like to take it up with them?

Wow… let’s analyse it:
“Missinterpret” = “perception… misinterpretation”
“real stimulus” = “something objectively existing”
Pretty much sums it… Apparently you cannot read synonims.

I am fine with synonyms thanks. However what you’ve written above makes little sense as far as I can determine. If this is important to you could you explain what you’re trying to say please?

Again… no…*
Re read what I said and this time with a dictionary close by.

Thus far I seem to be in accord with dictionary use of terms while you are disagreeing with them.*

Perhaps it would be helpful if you wrote out as simply as you can what you believe happened? Key points being*

• was the sun really dancing?
• what did people perceive happening?
• if there is a difference between the two why does that difference exist?

Imagine this scenario:*
You are looking at a friend of yours 100 meters away.
I put myself 5 meters away from you between you and your friend.
You see me and think: “dskysmine is a giant”. (If you can’t get the visual cues search for depth perception)
Did I deceive you into thinking I am a giant?
If you say yes I abandon this endeavor of trying to explain anything to you because I cannot do anything else.

No, and the reason it is not a deception is also the reason it is different from Fatima. In the scenario above all you’ve done is step up and I’ve got the wrong end of the stick. You are not responsible for my misapprehension because you could neither predict or prevent it.

To make this the equivalent of Fatima you would have to have deliberately and knowingly positioned yourself and any additional props that were required in order to fool my depth perception. If you’d done that of course it would indeed have been a deception. Just like some magicians tricks where they use forced perspective etc to create illusions.*

Of course even what you’ve suggested above wouldn’t be sufficient defence for God against an accusation of deception since God would have known in advance exactly what I’d think if he stepped between me and my friend in exactly that way (because he is omniscient) and he was entirely free to step between us in a way which didn’t create this false impression (because he’s omnipotent). So God can’t have created a false impression accidentally the way a person might. If its God, it must be deliberate.*

 

[Candide_West]

I mean to say that you will always view the event as God deceiving those people, in a bad way, and therefore will probably never commit to the idea of the events at Fatima being a genuine miracle for the good of mankind, and you would be right. Deception from God, the way you are thinking, would never come from God. For some reason you refuse to see the why…and the good that came from it…That’s cool.

Ahhh, I see. Sorry I didn’t intend to imply a value judgement (that God creating this illusion is necessarily a bad thing). I don’t have particularly strong view on this being good or bad. It’s just surprising to me because it’s so different from the impression of God I had when I was a Christian.

If I viewed the event from your perspective then yes I would, but of course I do not.*

Think this is cleared up now you know I don’t see it as being necessarily a bad thing.

Sorry, I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic; that’s the bad thing about online forums. Intonation is impossible to detect. *

No, not sarcastic at all. Presumably if God created this illusion then he intended people to believe it. And since the result of it was people converting then presumably this is what God knew would happen and intended to happen.

Good point…

Thanks

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well in so far as we’ve agreed he undertook deception and yes I consider deception to be shifty, yes.*

We have NOT agreed. He did not deceive.

I have no views on Gods potential motives.*

Well I’ve assumed it was an illusion/miracle for the sake of discussion. Just to test out the impact IF this is true. I know back when I was Christian I’d have struggled a lot with believing God deceives people, mostly because I believed “Jesus is the Truth” etc which obviously rather conflicts with “God sometimes deceives people”.*

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A miracle is an action or event that is SUPERnatural. it is above nature. It is not a deception or a cheat.

God does not deceive.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It is also very disingenuous to make statements such as 'we have all agreed on God’s using deception" when we have NOT agreed on it by ANY means and have been quite clear all along that we have not agreed.

It would be tantamount to my stating that "we have all agreed that atheists are delusional’. First, nobody (especially me) has made that statement to begin with (nor would I except as, above, a ‘hypothetical’ to be used as a comparative to a discussion.)
. And if somebody DID make the statement, most everybody here would DISAGREE.

Making the statement ‘we have all agreed God deceived’ is a misperception on your part, Candide West. We have made no such agreement. Nor will we.

 

[joe370]

A miracle is an action or event that is SUPERnatural. it is above nature. It is not a deception or a cheat.

God does not deceive.

 

[dskysmine]

But that ISN’T what the witness’s reported now is it? If all the witnesses had reported that they experienced the presence of God then you’d be fine saying that but (if you read the statements) you’ll see that they are very specific about it being the sun doing odd things…

“…the sun appeared in all its splendour. Then it began to revolve on its axis like the most magnificent fire-wheel that could be imagined, taking all the colours of the rainbow…”

“the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic law - the sun danced.”*

"The sun, whirling wildly seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth"

How can the fact that nobody say exactly what it was disprove my statement that it was a miss perception? If their brains are Natural it cannot understand the Supernatural so the brain tries to organize what you see in the thing that makes most sense possible. In this case it was movement of the sun. This just proves my case that people cannot in this lifetime perceive the Divine in all its splendor.

I’m afraid that doesn’t fly, because people can make mistakes but God cannot. The impression people got MUST have been the impression he intended them to get. Otherwise you’re saying he made a mistake, which make him imperfect.

This is the most blatant proof that you are already assuming the conclusion and not weighting the argument.
Do you think this “flies” with Catholics? Jesus is God and He didn’t convince everybody He spoke to that He was God… does that mean He made a mistake?
No! It means that God doesn’t invincibly defeat us against our freedom to believe in Him.

No you’re misunderstanding I’m afraid. The only testimony I’m using is those who were at Fatima. As for Gods will, well we know that whatever happened must have been his will, otherwise again you’ve got God making a mistake in performing one of his miracles (imagine God afterwards going “oops, didn’t mean for them to see that”).

Same as previous… you obviously think everything that happens is “the Will of God” (and I say that in the most respectful way because you obviously have no understanding of Catholic Philosophy regarding Free Will and God’s Will).

Incorrect on both counts. Here’s a definition for the term hallucination (from Merriam Webster) which is his I’ve been using the term…

1 a : perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD) b : the object so perceived
2 : an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion
synonyms see delusion

synonyms delusion, illusion, hallucination, mirage mean something that is believed to be true or real but that is actually false or unreal. delusion implies an inability to distinguish between what is real and what only seems to be real, often as the result of a disordered state of mind . illusion implies a false ascribing of reality based on what one sees or imagines . hallucination implies impressions that are the product of disordered senses, as because of mental illness or drugs . mirage in its extended sense applies to an illusory vision, dream, hope, or aim .

Hope that helps.

I was right in both accounts… your definition of Hallucination has nothing to do with what I stated.

I know, I read it.*

I never said anything of the sort. See definition of hallucination above.

It is not, heres the full definition from Merriam Webster for clarity…

Main Entry: illusion*
Pronunciation: \i-ˈlü-zhən
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin illusion-, illusio, from Latin, action of mocking, from illudere to mock at, from in- + ludere to play, mock — more at ludicrous
Date: 14th century
1 a obsolete : the action of deceiving b (1) : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception
2 a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that deceives or misleads intellectually b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) : hallucination 1 (3) : a pattern capable of reversible perspective
3 : a fine plain transparent bobbinet or tulle usually made of silk and used for veils, trimmings, and dresses
synonyms see delusion

It is…
Check 2 b (1)… almost word for word.

So far that would seem to have been unsuccessful.

You use both words interchangeably… I am not. That proves my point.

Ok, you seem to be in disagreement with Merriam Webster dictionary on this one. Perhaps you’d like to take it up with them?

I am fine with synonyms thanks. However what you’ve written above makes little sense as far as I can determine. If this is important to you could you explain what you’re trying to say please?

I clearly explained myself what I meant when I used my definition… you simply ignored what I said and even tried to conflate it with hallucination which has nothing to do with it.
And as you can see “deception” is in the “obsolete” part of the meaning of Illusion.
I meant Illusion as (and quoted from YOUR DEFINITION):
“perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature”

Thus far I seem to be in accord with dictionary use of terms while you are disagreeing with them.*

Perhaps it would be helpful if you wrote out as simply as you can what you believe happened? Key points being*

• was the sun really dancing?
• what did people perceive happening?
• if there is a difference between the two why does that difference exist?

1st: If by “the sun” you mean the star approximately at 8 minutes light speed away from planet Earth, no.
2nd: A lot of people there saw the sun dancing (and also experienced fast drying of clothes as far as I remember).
3rd: Yes there is a difference, because a lot of the people in that area experienced a miracle (the Supernatural). And the best “proof” I have is that not all the people there experienced it. If it had been indeed a mass hallucination I expected that pretty much all the common people there to experience the same thing while a significantly smaller proportion of the most educated people there would also experience it, but according to the reports that is not what happened. Almost everyone that had higher education or had enough to work in Newspapers and the like reported the experience while a significant part of the people who went there expecting to see something did not. This also eliminates an atmospheric event because that would have to have been experienced by everyone. I believe in the Supernatural. I believe that the Supernatural is not like the Natural world. I expect that when the Supernatural influences the Natural World we can identify it and this case is one of the most easy ones to make this spot on. When the Supernatural affects the Natural world it distorts it somehow, bends it, like the space time is bent by gravity, and more so it affects people differently because not everyone has the same “reception” (let’s call it like that for the purpose of this exercise).

No, and the reason it is not a deception is also the reason it is different from Fatima. In the scenario above all you’ve done is step up and I’ve got the wrong end of the stick. You are not responsible for my misapprehension because you could neither predict or prevent it.

To make this the equivalent of Fatima you would have to have deliberately and knowingly positioned yourself and any additional props that were required in order to fool my depth perception. If you’d done that of course it would indeed have been a deception. Just like some magicians tricks where they use forced perspective etc to create illusions.*

Of course even what you’ve suggested above wouldn’t be sufficient defence for God against an accusation of deception since God would have known in advance exactly what I’d think if he stepped between me and my friend in exactly that way (because he is omniscient) and he was entirely free to step between us in a way which didn’t create this false impression (because he’s omnipotent). So God can’t have created a false impression accidentally the way a person might. If its God, it must be deliberate.*

There you go admitting what God can and cannot do when you don’t even understand what God is…
This is so typical. Build a straw man and charge at it while you can.
Nobody believes that God created the miracle so people would think He is powerful enough to move the sun. Everybody knows He is that powerful… but God did not choose this miracle to show off. This miracle was solely for the people to believe the 3 little shepherds.
If you don’t believe in God please don’t assume you know what He can and cannot do, or what He knows.
A believer cannot assume…

God bless you and give you Grace,
D.